Joseph Ratzinger who has no title as Pope:

Quote

In other words, the claim of truth ought not to be raised where there is not a compelling and indisputable reason for doing so.

Orwellian doublespeak pales in comparison.  I am flabbergasted that he actually set this sentence down in print.  This is so bold that my tongue has just dried up in my mouth -- I'm almost speechless. I can't find the right way to even express the significance of this statement in bold enough terms.  Ratzinger is attacking truth itself in the abstract.  He is actually trying to make it seem like an act of Christian charity to withhold the truth.  

As usual with him, "love" means having the kindness to not bother anyone with pesky proselytizing and to allow them to perish in their delusions.  Not that it would help much if they were converted to his poor imitation of the Catholic Church.

The SSPX is in "talks" with Rome about these and other heresies.  Any word from them about this?  They are almost certainly aware of it.

another thought, does he hold this view now? Has he repented (like certain former guitar playing metal heads claim they have of their sins)?

CM, I believe the "talks" of the SSPX are a diversionary manoeuvre and a red herring.  SSPX-watchers constantly fret about whether Bp. Fellay will be sucked back into the VII sect.  What they do not or cannot fathom is that because of the una cuм mass they are ALREADY IN THE SECT.

It's sort of like how conspiracy theorists worry and obsess over the "Amero" and the end of American sovereignity, when the dollar bill is already riddled with Freemasonic symbols and this nation has been Freemasonic since the Constitution was drafted.

ARGGGHH!  I just got jury duty!  

In other words, the claim of truth ought not to be raised where there is not a compelling and indisputable reason for doing so. We may not interpret as truth that which is, in reality, a historical development with a more or less close relationship to truth. Whenever, then, the weight of truth and its incontrovertibility are involved, they must be met by a corresponding sincerity that avoids laying claim to truth prematurely and is ready to search for the inner fullness of truth with the eyes of love.

You're misunderstanding what he is trying to say, which is not surprising since you have no charity within you.

In summary, his point is that we cannot demand the conversion of the Orthodox on the grounds of an historical development of the Papacy which is accidental to the essence of the office and doctrine itself.  He doesn't specify what he thinks might comprise these non-essential historical developments, rather he is laying the groundwork for the necessary truth upon which one must convert to.  

No heresy here, other things maybe, but not heresy for he implicitly asserts that there is indeed unchangeable truth to which one must adhere.  

It's sort of like how conspiracy theorists worry and obsess over the "Amero" and the end of American sovereignity,

USA on bad foundations to start with, does not mean I want to merge with Socialist Canada or anarchic Mexico either.Canada is way ahead, thought we are closing gap, on socialism.....MExico, last 100+ yrs of rulers were Freemasons and/or tied in some way to Freemasons! Study the nation since independance from SPain, afterward ,study other S.AMerican leaders from same period, almost all Masonic to a tee.Bolivar be the worst in many ways....the rebellion against Spain largely to break from Church/State......Remember teh Christeros.....

They do not care because they consider the Pope no more than a Prot or pagan........they excommunicated the Church, they could care less.

Do you realize how mortally sinful it is to wrongly impute false motives to someone else especially when the contrary is publicly manifested and there is no evidence to the contrary?  And for the last time, the ravings of your imagination and superficial "intuitions" do not constitute evidence.

Was St. Catherine of Siena "mortally sinful" when she said that the cardinals who elected the Avignon Popes were "flowers that shed no perfume, but stench that makes the whole world reek," or was she telling the truth?    

Was Christ "mortally sinful" when He called the Pharisees "children of the devil"?

It seems to me that SSPX is keeping the VII sect alive and hopping, and that they go out of their way to justify the enemy, even going so far as to say the New Rite of Consecration is valid and to allow priests to enter their society DIRECT from Novus Ordo without being re-ordained.  Abp. Lefebvre when he was alive kicked sedevacantists out of the seminary without any pay, against the rules of the Church, enforced the 1962 Missal, and enforced the una cuм with an iron rod.

How is the contrary of my "intuition" publicly manifested, Caminus?  Please explain, I'm listening.  My intuition is based on the facts I just presented, the concrete ACTIONS of the SSPX, just as the Cardinals of the Great Western Schism showed their bad faith through the action of electing two Popes because they didn't like the first one.  

You want to turn me into the intolerant and uncharitable one because of my mere words, when Abp. Lefebvre's ACTIONS showed he was the one who truly lacked charity, and it is his actions that have led to my harsh words.  If Abp. Lefebvre just wanted to maintain tradition why did he not allow SSPX to be an umbrella covering both sedevacantists and those who said the una cuм until we had further information about which side was right?  For someone who was honestly confused and troubled that would be the obvious solution.  

Like Malachi Martin, Abp. Lefebvre seems to be a sacred monster for some traditionalists.  They can create all kinds of havoc and then be forgiven anything because they were "confused."  What many don't understand is that this does not excuse him even if it's true.  A leader's job is to lead -- if he is confused, he is a bad leader, and God has not called him.  It's pretty simple.  But Abp. Lefebvre not only positioned himself as a leader, but tried to squelch and squash the voices of those who would have made better leaders, because they possessed more truth.

Again, this was an action, that had results, that had consequences, that had FRUITS that REEKED, upon which I base my provisional judgment.